One of the reasons for the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the most important of all was Ukraine's attempts to join the European Union and NATO, and this attempt came not only from Ukraine itself, but also from NATO, and its goal was to move from the defense of Ukraine to the creation of a possible encirclement movement against Russia.
at least;
This is how Russia viewed this process. In fact, Russia's point of view cannot be considered completely wrong, because this point of view was not hidden by the United States of America, nor was it hidden within NATO's expansionist discourse.
On the other hand, Russia has stated from the beginning that the presence of a NATO base in Ukraine would be considered a threat and aggression against it.
This was expected, of course, and the task of NATO was to take steps to prepare for such an attack, which it expected from Russia in the first place, but for those looking from the outside, what was not expected was to leave Ukraine - somehow - alone in the face of the expected Russian aggression following these steps taken by NATO .
What did NATO's defensive shield do in the face of Russian aggression?
This was the first big question on this adventure, and it was suggestive enough that the NATO myth may have come to an end.
However, while Russia's occupation of Ukraine continued, we also saw how Sweden and Finland, in particular, announced that they would not accept NATO membership, and yet both countries applied for NATO membership.
Perhaps these two countries thought that NATO was the solution to the Ukraine issue, and perhaps they wanted the same solution for themselves?
But what can you hope and expect from NATO, which did not protect Ukraine?
He hardly even had a role other than as a motivating reason for the invasion of Ukraine.
In fact, Turkey has long talked about dimensions of NATO that have caused harm to its members rather than rendering the service they expect of it. Although one of the most important provisions of the NATO agreement states that “any threat or attack against one member shall be deemed to be directed against all members,” members NATO - not to mention solidarity with Turkey - was the cause and supporter of the separatist threat against Turkey.
Sweden and Finland never expected Turkey to raise such an objection or to veto them, or they might think that Turkey is a US vassal rather than a decision-maker within NATO.
The fact is that Turkey is determined to use this right and power to the fullest.
While the United States of America (the most powerful member of NATO) was expected to prevent the activities of the terrorist organization of the Kurdistan Workers' Party against Turkey - which is another member of NATO - it finds it supporting this organization and increasing the threat;
Where the United States of America itself supports the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which operates in Syria under the name of the Democratic Union Party and supplies it with all kinds of weapons.
Furthermore it;
This organization has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States of America itself, and the United States knows very well what its support for this organization means to its NATO ally Turkey.
It is known that the United States itself is harboring the leader of the "FETO" terrorist organization - which tried to carry out a military coup in Turkey 6 years ago - and all its leading pillars and put all their activities under its protection.
This support has always been open to the possibility that the United States of America, as a member of NATO, would have a role in this military coup.
Thus, looking at the Ukrainian experience, we see that NATO has turned into a myth that has no positive contribution to its members, let alone benefits them.
While Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan - as one of the most important members of NATO - has stated that he will not agree to the membership of Sweden and Finland, he has not only made a simple objection to the support of these countries for the PKK, but also drew attention with this objection to the fact that NATO has lost its functions, and may have opened The way to do this is for more grounded discussions.
Sweden and Finland are at the top of the countries supporting the Democratic Union Party, which is engaged in hostile activities against Turkey, which is one of the most important members of NATO, which they now want to join.
And while they give the largest support to the PKK presence in Europe, they see the PYD as a freedom movement in Syria, and they provide it with all kinds of armed support, and of course this support is also used in the attacks carried out against Turkey.
Sweden provided drones to the Democratic Union Party - it is assumed that they will be used against the Islamic State - and they are used jointly with the PKK, and for the same reason, the Swedish government decided to support the Democratic Union Party with an amount of 376 million dollars next year, and no one can deny that this support It feeds a threat against Turkey.
It is an interesting question: How did these two countries, despite all this, confidently apply for membership in NATO, knowing that Turkey has a veto?
Frankly, they may have never expected Turkey to raise such an objection or to veto them, or they may think that Turkey is a US client state rather than a decision-maker within NATO.
The fact is that Turkey is determined to use this right and power to the fullest.
While Turkey expresses its criticism that NATO has lost all its functions, it also exposes NATO's contradictions, contradictions, and shortcomings.
It does not, of course, do so with the intent of opposing NATO;
The result is that Turkey rightly forms part of NATO and wants NATO to return to its basic tasks, to be steadfast in its positions, to abide by the founding agreement, and of course it wants it to become stronger, and it wants NATO to actually give its members safety, to be a protective shield and to be reliable against unjust attacks, and to show solidarity with all members when a threat arises against its members.
Turkey does not want much, and sees it possible for Sweden and Finland to become members of NATO in such a way that its founding goal is corrected, rather than becoming members that would add to NATO's contradictions.